Esso Rsch. & Eng'g Co. v. Kahn & Co., Inc., & Chandler-Evans, Inc., 513 F.2d 1341 (2d Cir. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
Esso Rsch. & Eng'g Co. v. Kahn & Co., Inc., & Chandler-Evans, Inc., 513 F.2d 1341 (2d Cir. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: U. S. Philips Corp. v. National Micronetics Inc. v. North American Philips Corporation and N. v. Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken, Counter-Defendants (ca2, 1977-01-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) U. S. Philips Corp. v. National Micronetics Inc. v. North American Philips Corporation and N. v. Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken, Counter-Defendants (2×)
2d Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
Esso Research & Engineering Co. v. Kahn & Co., supra, 513 F.2d at 1341.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Esso Research and Engineering Company
v.
Kahn and Company, Inc., and Chandler-Evans, Inc.
575.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Apr 28, 1975.
513 F.2d 1341
Published

513 F.2d 1341

186 U.S.P.Q. 317

ESSO RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KAHN AND COMPANY, INC., and Chandler-Evans, Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 575, Docket 74-1765.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued April 9, 1975.
Decided April 28, 1975.

Robert I. Pearlman, Linden, N. J. (Richard A. Huettner and Kenyon & Kenyon Reilly Carr & Chapin, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Roger B. McCormick, Hartford, Conn. (McCormick, Paulding & Huber and William M. Pomerantz, Pomerantz & Seserman, Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Before HAYS, GURFEIN and VAN GRAAFEILAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The patent involved in this case was issued to Dr. Charles W. Skarstrom for his "Method and Apparatus for Fractionating Gasseous Mixtures by Adsorption." Skarstrom came upon his method by some clever experimenting and modification of the apparatus he was using for a similar purpose when it broke down.

2

Admirable as Dr. Skarstrom's work may have been, it was done without knowledge of prior similar work of a German physicist named Kahle. We agree with Judge Blumenfeld that Kahle's work, not cited to the Patent Office at the time of Skarstrom's application, contains substantially all the elements of Skarstrom's device, both individually and in combination. For that reason, Skarstrom's patent does not satisfy the requirement of nonobviousness established by 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966). We therefore affirm on the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of Judge Blumenfeld reported at 379 F.Supp. 205 (D.Conn.1974).